Posted by Henry Martin on 2008-12-10 10:37:38
I must confess, I saw your last post first, but I went to the first one to see how you came to the conclusion you did.

We dropped the ball on the whole energy thing back in the seventies. I remember lamenting the price of gasoline reaching $1.00. But at the same time, I remember noting that if gasoline had gone up at the rate of other commodities, we would have been spending quite a bit more for it in those days. And now, only six months after you posted this, gas is below $1.50, probably about where it should be in the whole scheme of things.

But at about the same time we "recovered" from the previous energy crisis (most likely "created" by the suppliers), we also got scared off of the SAFEST of power sources. Similar to the energy of the sun the energy of the atom is far safer to harness than other. Even hydro-electric disrupts the life cycle of fish. Windmills are dangerous to birds. Of course coal and oil (trapped sunshine) pollute or at least additional carbon dioxide to the air.

A properly designed nuclear plant is of no danger to anyone. The fuel, in the wrong hands, can be dangerous in other applications, but the plant itself is safe. Spent fuel, on the other hand, can be disposed of safely with no harm to the environment. Low-level irradiated material, which probably doesn't cause any more harm than most granite stones in our buildings (or some brick), is disposed of with just as much care!

Photo-electric cells are becoming better, for sure, and cheaper. But the future in solar is probably in heat collection via mirrors and lenses. Making electricity the old-fashioned way - spinning magnets! That is the way turbines do it, whether turned by flywheels, water, or steam (heated by fossil fuel, radio-active decay, or light rays).

Posted by scott on 2008-12-12 12:48:18
I also believe that solar energy can be enhanced with magnifying glass and lenses as Henry stated. If you can burn bugs, you can power a pc.